Agenda item

The licensing officer presented their report.  Members had no questions for the licensing officer.

The licensing officer advised that the applicant had informed them that they and their legal representative would not be present.

The public health authority representative addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the public health authority representative

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the licensing officer.

The trading standards officer addressed the sub-committee. Members had questions for the trading standards officer.

All parties were given an opportunity for summing up.

The meeting went into closed session at 11.23am. Prior to going into closed session the chair informed the parties that they would be informed of the full decision in writing.

The meeting resumed at 11.47am and the chair advised all parties of the summary of the decision.

RESOLVED:

That the application by Bahader Mahil for a variation of a premises licence issued under the Licensing Act 2003 in respect of the premises known as B.D. Wines, 1 Braganza Street, London SE17 3RD granted as follows:

Conditions

The operation of the premises under the licence shall be subject to relevant mandatory conditions, conditions derived from the operation schedule highlighted in Section M of the application form and the conciliated conditions agreed with trading standards.

Reasons

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

The licensing sub-committee considered the application in the absence of the applicant and their legal representative. The licensing officer advised that they had spoken with both the applicant and their legal representative and had been informed that neither would be in attendance.

The public health authority representative addressed the sub-committee and advised that the early morning supply of alcohol tends to encourage those with alcohol dependency and anti-social behaviour.  She also said that longer hours of serving alcohol result in greater incidents of alcohol related harm.

The licensing officer representing the council as a responsible authority was not available and as such the trading standards officer adopted his representations. They informed the sub-committee that the representations were on the basis that the hours sought were greater than the hours suggested in the Southwark licensing policy for residential areas.  However, they recognised that the sub-committee could deviate from the suggested hours in the policy where appropriate.

The licensing sub-committee heard from the trading standards officer who advised that they had conciliated a number of conditions relating to CCTV and Challenge 25 policy with the applicant.  However, they sought a condition to control the types of alcohol that would be sold in the premises, namely high strength beers, lagers and ciders over 6.5% ABV.

The sub-committee noted the written representation from the ward councillor objecting to the application.

The licensing sub-committee considered all of the oral and written representations before it and noted the difficulties that had been caused by the failure of the applicant and their representative to attend and support their application. Without the contribution and clarification from the applicant as to why they sought an extension of early hours for the sale of alcohol, the sub-committee were in difficulty to justify the extension sought.

The licensing sub-committee felt that the conciliated conditions ensured that the premises would promote the licensing objectives. They were of the opinion that 10.00 was a reasonable time for this premises to start supplying alcohol and as such they agreed to vary the hours on Sunday to reflect this.

In reaching this decision the sub-committee had regard to all the relevant considerations and the four licensing objectives and considered that this decision was appropriate and proportionate.

Appeal rights

The applicant may appeal against any decision to modify the conditions of the licence; and

Any person who made relevant representations in relation to the application who desire to contend that:

a)  That variation ought not to have been made; or

b)  That, when varying the licence, the licensing authority ought not to have modified the conditions of the licence, or ought to have modified them in a different way

may appeal against the decision.

Any appeal must be made to the magistrates’ Court for the area in which the premises are situated. Any appeal must be commenced by notice of appeal given by the appellant to the justices’ clerk for the Magistrates’ Court within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the appellant was notified by the licensing authority of the decision appealed against.